Extrajudicial Activities in General

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, except as prohibited by law. However, when engaging in extrajudicial activities, a judge shall not do any of the following: (A) Participate in activities that will interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties; (B) Participate in activities that will lead to frequent disqualification of the judge; (C) Participate in activities that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality; (D) Engage in conduct that would appear to a reasonable person to be coercive; (E) Make use of court premises, staff, stationery, equipment, or other resources, except for incidental use for extrajudicial activities permitted by law. Comment [1] To the extent that time permits, and judicial independence and impartiality are not compromised, judges are encouraged to engage in appropriate extrajudicial activities. Judges are uniquely qualified to engage in extrajudicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by: (1) speaking, writing, teaching, or participating in scholarly research projects; (2) participating in judicial or bar association activities; or (3) serving on a board, commission, committee or task force established by the Supreme Court or a judicial or bar association. In addition, judges are permitted and encouraged to engage in educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic extrajudicial activities not conducted for profit, even when the activities do not involve the law. See Rule 3.7. However, a judge should consider whether engaging in a particular extrajudicial activity could give rise to an unlawful interest in a public contract as prohibited by R.C. 2921.42. [2] Participation in both law-related and other extrajudicial activities helps integrate judges into their communities and furthers public understanding of and respect for courts and the judicial system. [3] Discriminatory actions and expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judge’s official or judicial actions, are likely to appear to a reasonable person to call into question the judge’s integrity and impartiality. Examples include jokes or other remarks that demean individuals based upon their race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. For the same reason, a judge’s extrajudicial activities must not be conducted in connection or affiliation with an organization that practices invidious discrimination. See Rule 3.6. 42 [4] While engaged in permitted extrajudicial activities, judges must not coerce others or take action that would reasonably be perceived as coercive. For example, depending upon the circumstances, a judge’s solicitation of contributions or memberships for an organization, even as permitted by Rule 3.7(A), might create the risk that the person solicited would feel obligated to respond favorably, or would do so to curry favor with the judge. Comparison to Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 3.1(A), (D), and (E) have no counterparts in the Ohio Code. Rules 3.1(B) and (C) are found in Ohio Canon 2(A). Comparison to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct